From the judge prompt in the paper:
> Papers asking whether LLMs have such properties are assuming them (e.g., ‘Do LLMs have musical talent’, ‘Do LLMs present empathy’, etc).
This seems like...a very bad definition of "assuming" something? If I ask "do you know how to play the guitar?" I am absolutely not assuming that you know how to play the guitar!
Isn’t the entire paper is trying to point out that the second you ask the question “Do LLM have <anthropomorphic property X>”, you have to assume that they do, even before you make any assessment?
Just because the person asking the question isn’t aware of they’re implicitly making that assumption, doesn’t change the fact that a logical assumption has been made. It just makes the questioner ignorant of the assumptions they’re making.
Personally don’t totally understand the argument being made in the paper. But I can understand the idea that I can ask a question, without properly understanding the assumptions I’m making when asking the questions. Indeed I can also understand that I might not even notice the assumptions I’ve made with my question, and why that would make my entire exploration and conclusion invalid, _after_ doing the investigation. Logical fallacies can be really difficult to spot and understand.
> the second you ask the question “Do <things> have <property>”, you have to assume that they do
being able to imagine something doesn't mean believing in it?
I completely fail to understand the argument
I feel like there's some mistake in confusing 2 meanings of "assume" - one where it's close to 100% probability and one where it's close to 0% probability.
> being able to imagine something doesn't mean believing in it?
In general, no, but some assumptions come with such heavy implicit baggage that you arguably do.
An example can be, the question, "does anything matter?".
By asking that question, you have allowed for the possibility that some things matter. But if you allow for that possibility, you might as well believe it - because if it's wrong, by definition it doesn't matter that you're wrong.
This argument doesn't prove that anything matters. But it proves that you already assumed that some things matter.
> prove that anything matters
The proveability itself seems based upon assumption.
This invites the question of whether assumptions have assumed the role of anti-matter.
> the second you ask the question “Do LLM have <anthropomorphic property X>”, you have to assume that they do … Just because the person asking the question isn’t aware of they’re implicitly making that assumption, doesn’t change the fact that a logical assumption has been made. It just makes the questioner ignorant of the assumptions they’re making.
1. Do LLMs have loyalty?
2. Do LLMs have sorrow?
3. Do LLMs have moods?
4. Do LLMs have destinies?
5. Do LLMs have spirits?
6. Do LLMs have holidays?
7. Do LLMs have a sense of boredom?
I say I don't believe LLMs have those properties, but you believe that since I asked those questions that I actually must assume LLMs must have them?
Also, is this specific to LLMs, or if someone asked questions like "Does a blade of grass (etc) have <anthropomorphic property X>?", you have to assume they do?
You're still assuming the person is capable of playing the guitar.
Does your fridge play the banjo? Doesn't make sense does it?
Yes, asking the question does assumes that the answer could be yes. It also assumes that the answer could be no. This is exactly the kind of scientific approach the paper claims we should take. So it's certainly a bit odd that the analysis approach the paper uses for its literature review---to claim that 57% of papers reviewed assume LLMs have anthropomorphic attributes---has "asks whether an LLM has an anthropomorphic attribute" as one of its criteria for concluding "assumes LLMs have anthropomorphic attributes."
You're right that "assumes" might be misleading. Maybe "implies" would be more correct.
The point the author's trying to make is that if we state in a paper something like "the LLM understands, believes, thinks, ..." then we're supposing an intelligence much like our conception of a human intelligence. It's a form of 'begging the question' -- assuming what you're trying to prove.
It is not quite a fair argument, just because we don't have a precise vocabulary around how to talk about the activity of LLMs that doesn't involve making these loose analogies. Except for philosophers and people engaging in this kind of "is it truly intelligent or no" conversation, being imprecise in this way doesn't necessary have any cost, but is just a convenient way to avoid developing a jargon.
> we don't have a precise vocabulary...
We do, but much of computer science is still inaccessible to the layperson. The education gap only continues to grow.
I think it's surprising how much science jargon we've been able to cram into common english thus far without losing too many people. It just seems that, for now, LLMs are too convincingly close to science fiction for people to not be misled by their false intuitions and fears.
>Does your fridge play the banjo? Doesn't make sense does it?
Of course it makes sense. The answer is a simple and obvious "no". I don't need to assume anything to ask the question.
>Does your fridge play the banjo? Doesn't make sense does it?
A fridge isn't capable of creating things.
> Does your fridge play the banjo? Doesn't make sense does it?
have you ever heard DnD story about gazebo?
if you don't know anything about something, anything is possible and everything can make sense